Search

In Europe, the widespread transition from the Traditional Staircase (TS) model to the Housing First (HF) model is transforming the way social service providers work with people experiencing homelessness. This study examined social service providers' perspectives in both models regarding factors that facilitate or hinder their work. Data were collected through 17 photovoice projects involving 81 social service providers from eight European countries. The results show factors affecting social service providers' work at three levels: systemic, organizational, and individual. Professionals in TS and HF identified similar topics; however, TS providers discussed more obstacles to work. Implications for practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: Housing First reports more service user recovery but little is known about how this is achieved.Certain features of homeless services are likely to promote service users' recovery.Housing First service users reported more choice, better housing quality, and more satisfaction.Service features predicted independent housing, psychiatric symptoms, and community integration.Across socio‐political and economic contexts, Housing First predicts greater recovery than traditional services. Across Europe, as governments turn to housing‐led strategies in attempts to reverse rising rates of homelessness, increasing numbers of Housing First (HF) programs are being implemented. As HF programs become more widespread, it is important to understand how service users experience them compared to the more prevalent traditional treatment‐first approach to addressing long‐term homelessness. Although there is a large body of research on service users' experiences of Housing First compared to treatment‐first in North American contexts, comparatively less is known about how these two categories of homeless services are experienced in the European context. In a correlational and cross‐sectional study, part of a larger examination of homelessness in Europe, participants (n = 520) engaged with either HF (n = 245) or traditional services (TS; n = 275) programs in seven countries completed measures of their experiences of services (consumer choice, housing quality, and service satisfaction) and recovery (time in independent housing, psychiatric symptoms, and community integration). Across the seven countries, participants engaged with HF programs reported experiencing more consumer choice, better perceived housing quality, and more satisfaction with services than participants engaged in TS programs. Participants in HF programs also reported a greater proportion of time in independent accommodation, fewer psychiatric symptoms, and more community integration. Varying patterns of association between experiences of services and recovery outcomes were observed. Findings indicate HF consistently predicts greater recovery than TS across diverse sociopolitical and economic contexts. Implications of findings for configurations of homeless services and homeless services policy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation and adaptation of the Housing First (HF) model represented profound changes the structure and delivery, goals, and principles of homeless services. These features of homeless services directly influence providers, their work performance and the clients' outcomes. The present research, conducted in eight European countries, investigated how social providers working in HF or TS (Traditional Staircase) describe and conceptualize the goals and the principles of their services. Data were collected through 29 focus group discussions involving 121 providers. The results showed that HF and TS had similar and different goals for their clients in the following areas: support, social integration, satisfaction of needs, housing, and well-being. HF providers emphasized clients' autonomy and ability to determine their personal goals, with housing being considered a start on the path of recovery, while TS were more focused on individual clients' basic needs with respect to food, health and finding temporary accommodations. HF providers privileged the person-centered approach and housing as a right, while TS providers were more focused on helping everyone. Implications of the results are discussed as suggestions both for practice and for research.